The Lesson
1. Like the descriptions of things, descriptions of processes must also solve reader problems and meet reader needs.
2. Because a process takes time, the emphasis is less on parts and their arrangement (spatial patterns) and more on events and their sequence (chronological or causal patterns):
3. Analysis of examples shows how good process descriptions address the questions above while poor ones do not:
| Poor descriptions | Good descriptions |
| dictionary definition of a periscope--"optical instrument with mirrors" [process remains obscure] |
Macaulay and Ardley, description --reflection (periscope), p. 184 --amplification (transistor), p. 226 --internal combustion (engine), p. 156 |
The Exercises:
Appropriate exercises depend on the performance level of the students.
Level 1, preliminary
Ask students to identify the sequence-clarifying features of good process descriptions and to list missing features of poor descriptions (especially in matched pairs, as above). Repeat until the identifications are reliable. Instructor can bring in instructions and leave out critical steps and see if students can identify the gaps.
Level 2, basic
Ask student to revise poor (incomplete or inappropriate) process descriptions to make them more revealing for the reader (could include discussion of found flaws or comparison of proposed repairs among students). Good descriptions with specific features intentionally removed will help focus attention on learning specific revisions.
Level 3, mature
Ask students to draft good descriptions of basic science (magnification) or common commercial (radio, printing) processes, and perhaps get feedback on adequacy from another student. Use the list in item 2 above as criteria for adequacy. (In classes with specialized technical content, such as biology, all three levels can draw their description cases from the subject area rather than from commerce.)
Relevant Background References
David Macauley and Neil Ardley (1998). The New Way Things Work.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Steven Pauley (1973). Technical Report Writing Today.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin.